Is the title "Reverend" Orthodox in Origin?

This is a safe harbor for inquirers and catechumen to ask questions and share their journey into Holy Orthodoxy. Please be kind to our newcomers and warmly welcome them. All Forum Rules apply. No polemics. No heated discussions. No name-calling.

Moderator: Maria

User avatar
Justice
Sr Member
Posts: 802
Joined: Fri 5 May 2017 8:39 pm
Faith: Genuine Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Inquiring
Location: United States

Is the title "Reverend" Orthodox in Origin?

Postby Justice » Wed 25 October 2017 10:16 pm

Does the Title of Reverend come from Orthodoxy? when I think of a Reverend I think of a Protestant preacher. Though many Orthodox priests hold this title.

User avatar
NotChrysostomYet
Member
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri 15 September 2017 7:33 pm
Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America

Re: Is the title "Reverend" Orthodox in Origin?

Postby NotChrysostomYet » Thu 26 October 2017 1:45 pm

Yes, absolutely. For example, St. Cyril of Alexandria used it when he addressed Capreolus as "the most reverend and pious Capreolus, Bishop of Carthage" and as the "most reverend metropolitan".

User avatar
Justice
Sr Member
Posts: 802
Joined: Fri 5 May 2017 8:39 pm
Faith: Genuine Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Inquiring
Location: United States

Re: Is the title "Reverend" Orthodox in Origin?

Postby Justice » Thu 26 October 2017 2:58 pm

NotChrysostomYet wrote:Yes, absolutely. For example, St. Cyril of Alexandria used it when he addressed Capreolus as "the most reverend and pious Capreolus, Bishop of Carthage" and as the "most reverend metropolitan".

Interesting, it says here that the title originated in medieval Europe.

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Reverend

d9popov
Member
Posts: 159
Joined: Sat 10 June 2017 12:29 am

Re: Is the title "Reverend" Orthodox in Origin?

Postby d9popov » Thu 26 October 2017 9:43 pm

Justice wrote:Does the Title of Reverend come from Orthodoxy? when I think of a Reverend I think of a Protestant preacher. Though many Orthodox priests hold this title.


CLERGY HONORIFICS

The key point is that using clergy honorifics or titles is certainly Biblical and patristic, despite what a few Protestant fundamentalists claim, and despite the quirks of various languages. The Orthodox principle is clear, but the evolution of titles is complicated.

1 Timothy 5:17 reads, "The presbyters who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor [times, τιμῆς], especially those whose work is preaching and teaching." The Divine Liturgy prays "for ... the honorable presbytery" (Hyper ... tou timiou presbyteriou, Ὑπὲρ ... τοῦ τιμίου πρεσβυτερίου). The Greek adjective timios can be translated in various ways into English, including "honorable, honored, precious, venerable, revered," etc. The phrases "Honorabled Cross," "Honored Cross," and "Precious Cross" all are used for the same Greek phrase. Similarly, timios presbyteros could be translated into English as "Honorable Presbyter" or "Reverend Presbyter." The title "Reverend Father" is similar. Titles have evolved over the centuries and evolved somewhat differently in local churches. Often, the translations are not precise. Russians use "archbishop" differently from most Orthodox Churches, even some other Slavic Orthodox churches. The Greek term "Sebasmiotatos," pronounced "Sevasmiotatos" (meaning "Most Eminent, Most Revered") is usually translated into Slavonic as "visokopreosviashchenstvo" (високопреосвященство), which means something like "high above/among the clergy." It is an accurate term as to what an Orthodox hierarch is, but it is not an exact translation of the Greek term. It is actually a more complete term because it refers to the sacred, whereas "Sebasmiotatos" does not necessarily do so. Another issue is the question of which English term is the best translation of a term from Greek, Slavic, or another language. Sometimes an earlier English translation has become customary in English, even though there is a better alternative. For example, the Greek term "protoiereus" or "protoiereas" and the Slavic term "protoierei" have often been translated into English as "archpriest," although "protopriest" would be more precise. Greeks in Greece who know English imperfectly sometimes translate the Greek "Archiereis" as "High Priests" (when referring to contemporary bishops), but those who know English (and the English Bible) well would translate it as "hierarchs" or "bishops." (I have seen modern Greek academics, who know English well, but who do not know how to cite the Bible in English correctly, because they are unfamiliar with the English Bible.) Historically, the term "Archiereus" (=archpriest, literally) is translated as "high priest" or "chief priest" when in the Bible or when referring to "Christ the High Priest," but is translated "hierarch" or "bishop" in many other cases. It is simply a quirk of English that we say "High Priest" or "Chief Priests" for the Bible, but "hierarch" for a modern bishops, even though the original word is identical. I once read a Protestant claim that there was no such thing as "the High Priests" at one time, but only one High Priest at a time. (Sometimes the High Priest and his father-in-law would have virtually equal influence in practice, so in practice there was not always only one single High Priest.) Christ is the only High Priest in the absolute sense. What that Protestant also seemingly did not understand is that English often uses "High Priest" for the singular Greek word and "Chief Priests" for the plural of the same Greek work. The English word "hierarch," more precisely, comes from the Greek "Hierarches" not "Archiereus," but both are often translated into English as "hierarch." Those are some of the quirks of language and the evolution of language.

The key point is that the Orthodox Christian usage of clergy honorifics is a Biblical, Apostolic, and patristic teaching. Some of the specific titles have evolved, especially when translating from one language to another. Through history, Greeks have a tendency to add superlatives at the ends of works like "otatos" meaning "most." For example, the Ecumenical Patriarch is called "Panagiotatos," which literally means "most-all-holiness," whereas the Mother of God and the Divine Trinity are called "Panagia" (all-holy). The Patriarch is even called "His Divine Most-All-Holiness." But "divine" can mean "of God" in different ways. "Divine" can mean "God Himself" (as in "Divine Essence" and "Divine Energy") or simple a "holy" created person or created thing. God Himself is often called simply "Hagios" ("Holy"). So, the evolution of the superlative "otatos" ( a quirk of the Greek language) needs to be kept in mind in order to avoid confusion. No one is saying that an Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch (there is none today) would be more holy than God.

Translations become very important dogmatic issues when it comes to words related to worship, adoration, glorification, and veneration. We give absolute divine worship/adoration to God alone; and we give honor to the saints and icons --- and to the reverend presbytery and the most-reverend hierarchy.

User avatar
NotChrysostomYet
Member
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri 15 September 2017 7:33 pm
Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America

Re: Is the title "Reverend" Orthodox in Origin?

Postby NotChrysostomYet » Thu 26 October 2017 10:35 pm

Justice wrote:
NotChrysostomYet wrote:Yes, absolutely. For example, St. Cyril of Alexandria used it when he addressed Capreolus as "the most reverend and pious Capreolus, Bishop of Carthage" and as the "most reverend metropolitan".

Interesting, it says here that the title originated in medieval Europe.

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Reverend

The specific Latin rendering of the word that later got translated, yes. But the title the word is referring to is much, much older.

d9popov
Member
Posts: 159
Joined: Sat 10 June 2017 12:29 am

Re: Is the title "Reverend" Orthodox in Origin?

Postby d9popov » Thu 26 October 2017 10:51 pm

NotChrysostomYet wrote:Yes, absolutely. For example, St. Cyril of Alexandria used it when he addressed Capreolus as "the most reverend and pious Capreolus, Bishop of Carthage" and as the "most reverend metropolitan".


Modern Greeks have evolved new clergy titles that do not exist in any other languages in the world (not even in Ancient Greek). These titles may sound too grandiose when translated literally into English, but they make sense in the context of Greek culture and language. Take the very interesting title "Hosiologiotatos." "-otatos" means "most," "hosio" means "holy/righteous/ascetical," and "logio" means "learned." So one might translate it literally as "Most-Righteous-and-Learned." In practice, it means a priest who has a theology degree ("logio" for being "learned") and who is also celibate ("hosio" for "holiness/righteousness/asceticism"). "Most-Righteous-and-Learned" sounds much grander in English than Hosiologiotatos" does in modern Greek. The priest who is given this title may only have a bachelor's degree (hardly "learned" by modern standards in the West, where most mainline Protestant clergy have seven or more years of post-secondary study) and he may not be very ascetical at all. He may simply be a man who chose not to marry so that he might become a bishop some day. He may be a monk almost in name only; celibate and nominally connected to a monastery, but not necessarily living a traditional monastic life. This is especially the case within the State Church of Greece. In the context of modern Greek society and language, it does not literally mean "Most-Righteous-and-Learned," but refer to someone who is simply a celibate priest with a bachelors degree in theology (or maybe pastoral studies). Today, in secular Greek culture, the term "theologos" seemingly can sometimes be applied any to layman or laywoman with a four-year degree in theology. Patristic usage of "theologos" and modern Western usage of "theologian" are more restrictive. These are quirks of how languages evolve and of how translation is never an exact science.

d9popov
Member
Posts: 159
Joined: Sat 10 June 2017 12:29 am

Re: Is the title "Reverend" Orthodox in Origin?

Postby d9popov » Mon 2 April 2018 7:32 pm

QUESTION: What is a "patriarch" and why do the True Orthodox not have patriarchs?

ANSWER: In AD 451, the Orthodox Catholic Church recognized 5 archbishops as "patriarchs": in Rome, Constantinople/New Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. Later there were patriarchs of Georgia, Bulgaria, Serbia, Russia, and Romania. Some chief-bishops in a country (such as Athens in Greece or in Cyprus, Ukraine, Poland, Czech Lands, Slovakia, Albania, Finland, Japan, America) were never given the title patriarch and remained an archbishop or metropolitan. The title patriarch is largely based on how important the city was historically and internationally. Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch were the four most important cities in the Roman Empire. Jerusalem was added to them, and, hundreds of years later, Bulgaria, Serbia, Russia, etc. Today, the True Orthodox do not have much presence in these five ancient cities, but we could, in theory, elect a Russian or Serbian patriarch if we had a large enough flock in those countries. Athens and North American cities do not have a historical precedent for having a patriarch, and so will probably never have one. No mater what title (patriarch, metropolitan, archbishop) the difference is that the bishops in question are the "primate" or "first-hierarch" in a particular country or continent, which may have several metropolitans, archbishops, or bishops. In one sense all ruling/diocesan bishops (as opposed to vicar or auxiliary bishops) are equal. But the "first-hierarch" or primate is "first among equals" in a country or land and has certain responsibilities like scheduling twice yearly synods and presiding at the meetings, and hearing appeals. At an ecumenical/universal/empire-wide council, it is "one bishop, one vote." A patriarch may preside, but he has only one vote like any other diocesan bishop from a small town. But the last ecumenical council was in AD 787 (if you count 7) or AD 1351 (if you count 9).

The falsely-called "Orthodox" ecumenists had a so-called "Great and Holy Council" on the Greek island of Crete at Pentecost 2016 and they changed representation and voting completely in a more Roman Catholic direction. Four of their fourteen autocephalous (self-headed) churches boycotted it. The evil council planners even forged typed signatures for conservative bishops who refused to actually sign the ecumenist decrees. The leading theologian in the new calendar Greek Church (who is conservative) and a leading theologian in the Serbian patriarchate (who is also conservative) openly refused to sign, but their names were falsely typed in anyway!!! There was a very famous, evil council, in AD 449, and the good Orthodox pope called it a "Latrocinium" (Robber-Council). So the council of 2016 can also be called a Robber Council.

So, the true Orthodox do not have patriarchs both because we do not have a large church and also we mostly do not live in ancient “patriarchal” sees or cities.

The Robber Council of 449 was presided over by Patriarch Dioscorus of Alexandria (Egypt) but held in Ephesus, Asia Minor (present-day Turkey). His security detail ruffed up Patriarch Flavian of Constantinple, who died! The council was also heretical in that it denied that Christ was whole, perfect, and complete in His humanity. For nationalist reasons, the Copts in Egypt consider Diocorus a hero and saint. But the Orthodox Church judged his actions as "hateful-to-God." The Copts are pious, but they do not know the basic facts about their origins as a separate church from the Orthodox.


Return to “Inquiring into Orthodoxy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest